Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of non-pharmacological interventions during urinary catheter insertion for reducing urinary tract infections in non-immunocompromised adults. A systematic review / intervenciones no farmacológicas durante la inserción de un catéter urinario permanente para reducir las infecciones en adultos inmunocompetentes. Revisión sistemática
Sáenz-Montoya, Ximena; Grillo-Ardila, Carlos Fernando; Amaya-Guio, Jairo; Muñoz-Vesga, Jessica.
  • Sáenz-Montoya, Ximena; Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Faculty of Nursing. Department of Nursing. Bogotá D.C. CO
  • Grillo-Ardila, Carlos Fernando; Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Faculty of Medicine. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Bogotá D.C. CO
  • Amaya-Guio, Jairo; Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Faculty of Medicine. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Bogotá D.C. CO
  • Muñoz-Vesga, Jessica; Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Faculty of Nursing. Department of Nursing. Bogotá D.C. CO
Rev. Fac. Med. (Bogotá) ; 68(1): 24-33, Jan.-Mar. 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1125603
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) account for up to 30% of hospital -acquired infections. In this regard, several studies have reported the use of non-pharmacological interventions during urinary catheter insertion aimed at reducing the occurrence rate of CAUTI. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions during urinary catheter insertion aimed at reducing the risk of contracting infections in non-immunocompromised adults. Materials and methods: A literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Only randomized clinical trials comparing the use of non-pharmacological interventions to placebos, pharmacological interventions, or no intervention during catheter insertion were included. Results: Eight studies were retrieved (8 718 participants). Based on the evidence found in the review (low-quality and very low-quality evidence according to the GRADE system), using non-pharmacological interventions reduces the frequency of asymptomatic bacteriuria episodes (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.94; 7 studies) or mild adverse events (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74-0.96; 2 studies), but does not reduce the occurrence rate of symptomatic urinary tract infections (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.61-1.35; 4 studies) or improves quality-of-life scores (MD -0.01 EQ-5D scale; 95%CI (-0.03)-(0.01), 1 study). Conclusion: The use of non-pharmacological interventions during urinary catheter insertion does not pose any risk at all. Instead, it could help reduce the occurrence rate of infections associated with this procedure, such as asymptomatic bacteriuria and mild adverse events. However, there is very little evidence (in fact, low and very low-quality evidence) to make conclusions on the effectiveness of these interventions.
RESUMEN
Resumen Introducción. La infección asociada al catéter urinario es responsable de hasta un 30% de las infecciones nosocomiales. Al respecto, se ha descrito el uso de intervenciones no farmacológicas durante la inserción del catéter urinario para reducir la frecuencia de infecciones asociadas. Objetivo. Evaluar la seguridad y la efectividad de intervenciones no farmacológicas durante la inserción del catéter urinario diseñadas para reducir el riesgo de infección en adultos inmunocompetentes. Materiales y métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos MEDLINE, Embase y LILACS. Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados que compararan el uso de intervenciones no farmacológicas con el uso de placebos, el uso de intervenciones farmacológicas o la ausencia de intervención durante la inserción del catéter. Resultados. Se encontraron ocho estudios (8 718 participantes). Con base en la evidencia encontrada (baja y muy baja calidad según la clasificación del sistema GRADE), el uso de intervenciones no farmacológica reduce la frecuencia de bacteriuria asintomática (RR 0.67; IC95%: 0.48-0.94; 7 estudios) o de eventos adversos menores (RR 0.84, IC95%: 0.74-0.96; 2 estudios), pero no disminuye la tasa de infecciones sintomáticas del tracto urinario (RR 0.90; IC95%: 0.61 a 1.35; 4 estudios), ni mejora las puntuaciones de calidad de vida (escala MD -0.01 EQ-5D, IC95%: (-0.03)-(0.01), 1 estudio). Conclusión. El uso de intervenciones no farmacológicas durante la inserción del catéter urinario no supone riesgo alguno y sí podría ayudar a disminuir la frecuencia infecciones asociadas a este procedimiento, tales como la bacteriuria asintomática y eventos adversos menores; sin embargo, hay poca evidencia, y de baja o muy baja calidad, para llegar a conclusiones sobre su efectividad.


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Systematic reviews Language: English Journal: Rev. Fac. Med. (Bogotá) Journal subject: Medicine Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: Colombia Institution/Affiliation country: Universidad Nacional de Colombia/CO

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Systematic reviews Language: English Journal: Rev. Fac. Med. (Bogotá) Journal subject: Medicine Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: Colombia Institution/Affiliation country: Universidad Nacional de Colombia/CO